Tom Davis

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. In fact, as I understand the legislation, the gentleman has even stricter standards in terms of bid protests, in terms of what those criteria are going to be.

Mr. DAVIS. Let me just ask why because I understand it is well intentioned, and I applaud the gentlewoman from Illinois for offering this the first time in the authorization bill, although it was narrowly defeated. A lot of the opposition at that time was the fact it was approach to the authorization bill and was not free-standing. In this we have made concessions in this to try to accommodate some of the concerns that were rightfully raised, and I applaud her for that. But the central issue here is, should the Government in its procurement operate on a ``one size fits all'' standard, or are we going to allow the buyer, are we going to allow that agent then who is trying to get the best price they can for the Government, the flexibility to do the right thing, the flexibility to make those determinations, and, once again, the sole criteria is not changed one iota under the current law, and this amendment does not affect that at all. All the rhetoric notwithstanding it says decisions are going to be made in the back room. The decisions on sole source do not change one bit under this. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, we had published this in the Record. We have made two modifications from what was published. It will have the support of the administration and the committee chair on this. One was expressed by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the other by the administration. We have addressed those.

Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman, as I understand it, we have stricken the stipend provision, but any existing provisions in law that would allow a government contracting agent, of course, would remain in effect; is that correct?

Mr. DAVIS. I thank the gentleman. Let me just add that we have had a coalition of groups that have traditionally been at odds over how Federal procurements these groups compete on should be phrased. We have gotten them together and endorsed this. That includes the American Consulting Engineers Council, the American Institute of Architects, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Associated Builders and Contractors, the Associated General Contractors of America, the Construction Industries' Presidents Forum, the Design-Build Industry of America, and the National Society of Professional Engineers. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply say, I did a Dear Colleague letter this morning, but this amendment will, where appropriate, allow the agency buyer to choose between the traditional procurement methodology and the two-phase design-build selection procedure. It will allow the agency to develop either in-house or by contract a scope of work defining the project. The amendment also provides procuring agencies flexibility to determine the level of preliminary design necessary to be acquired, using the traditional method. It will provide the agency flexibility and authority to determine the number of offerors of competitive proposals in the second phase of the procurement process. It will require the FAR counsel to determine if the two-phase procedures are appropriate for use in individual contracting situations, establish factors that may be used to select contractors, establish a uniform governmentwide approach, and establish criteria for awarding stipends. I would urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the distinguished author of this bill and the chairman of the committee.

Mr. DAVIS. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the committee staff and Mrs. Brown for working with us, and the different groups, I ask adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DAVIS. And I think when we start talking about this, we have to talk what is the current state of where we are now. Where does the administration stand on this?

Mr. DAVIS. And, as I read this, the amendment and the bill, there was some rhetoric about these decisions were made by Government bureaucrats. I guess they are talking about Government procurement officers, behind closed doors, back-door decisions. But, as I read the sole-source requirements under the bill, they are the same seven source-sole requirements that currently are in operation that this amendment does not affect? Am I correct?

Mr. DAVIS. Now let me put sole source to one side just for one second. Can anyone bid on the procurement regard? Is there any bar to anyone bidding that is in this bill?

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to vote in support of the resolution disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission [BRAC]. I approve of the BRAC process, but in my district the Army has taken action under BRAC 95 that simply does not make sense, and I cannot support it. The Army, in its closure submittal to the BRAC, has proposed moving the 400 military and civilian personnel and equipment of the Army's Information Systems Software Development Center [ISSC] from leased space in Fairfax County to Government space on Fort Meade, MD. It is ostensibly an in-area move and personnel will be transferred to the new facility at Fort Meade without layoffs. With the pressure on the services to move out of leased space, it looks like a good move. But, this is a bad decision for the Army and the Government, and though I have urged the Army and the BRAC to reconsider this decision, today we still find this facility slated for transfer in this BRAC recommendation. The Army ISSC has been in Fairfax County for over 20 years. When the Army looked to move ISSC from outdated leased facilities in Fairfax, VA, it asked the General Services Administration [GSA] to rent space for ISSC in northern Virginia. The Army even specified the boundaries of an area in which they wanted to rent--a location close to its Fort Belvoir and Pentagon customers and close to where most of its employees had settled over the past 20 years. This was the Crown Ridge building located at the junction of I-66 and the Fairfax County Parkway in my district. GSA, at the request of the Army, signed a lease with Crown Ridge Associates for 6 years. That lease started a little over a year ago and runs through May 28, 2000. A total of $7.2 million was spent by Crown Ridge, GSA, and the Army to upgrade the building to meet the unique requirements of Army ISSC. Crown spent $1.3 million, GSA $2.9 million, and DOD spent $3.0 million to get this building ready. And in fact, they are still in the process of upgrading and moving into the space. After spending all this money, the Army proposed in this BRAC to move ISSC to Fort Meade, MD. The Army believes that it will save $8 million over 20 years. Under the Army lease with GSA, it can move out of the space without penalty if appropriate notice is given. Unfortunately for GSA and the American taxpayer, GSA is still obligated for the 6-year term of the lease. If the Army moves out, GSA is stuck with an empty building. Not only that, but this will not be an easy space for the GSA to find government customers for. Traditionally, GSA would look for locations in some proximity to mass transit--the subway, trains, and bus lines. This location is well beyond the subway and there are no easy connections to mass transit. To quote GSA regarding Army plans to move out of this building, . . . the building was leased specifically for the Army, and was altered to suit their specific needs. Other federal agencies have not expressed interest in the location, and the building might be difficult to market. In addition, the Army is going to have to convert or build facilities at Fort Meade. The Cobra model figures used by the Army indicate that it will have to spend roughly $5 million to renovate space at Fort Meade and moves ISSC. So, at a minimum, the Government spends $11 million in renovation and moving costs and ISSC has to go through two moves in 3 years. But, the Government also will be stuck with a $3 million per year lease for a building which may sit empty for 3 years-- another $9 million. This is not how Congress intended the BRAC process to work--the objective is to reduce costs for the Government, not just the military services. Clearly, the Army should have made this move before it asked GSA to sign a 6-year lease. Now, however, the lease has been signed, and the Government is on the hook even if the Army moves out. I understand the pressure on the Army to move out of leased space, but this is a bad deal for the Government and the American taxpayer. For this reason, I cannot support the BRAC recommendations.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Bateman, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Christensen and others for their work on restoring money to the Impact Aid Program. By funding this program at the amounts mentioned by the majority leader, Prince William County could gain $1.5 million and Fairfax County would gain an additional $800,000. Both of these school systems are spending far more in educating children of active duty military personnel on bases than they receive from the Government. And just as homeowners and businesses pay their local taxes annually, the Federal Government has an obligation to pay its fair share. Anything less amounts to an unfunded Federal mandate on localities.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, H.R. 2108 is a straightforward bill which allows the District of Columbia to move forward on two very important economic development projects--the MCI arena at Gallery Place and a new convention center. These projects will provide thousands of jobs of the type most needed in the District of Columbia and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity and tax revenues for our Nation's Capital. This bill is very narrowly crafted and specifically directs each item for which expenditures may be made. Also, the independent nature of both the Washington Convention Center Authority and the Redevelopment Land Agency, which is the lead agency on the arena project, mean that the power and influence of the Mayor and the Council are sharply curtailed and less than would have been the case if these projects had proceeded without this legislation. I want Members to know that the entities directing these projects are independent of the Mayor and have both the legal and fiduciary responsibility for their actions. This legislation does not create or raise taxes in the District of Columbia. The funds authorized to be expended by this legislation are already being collected and deposited in an escrow account. Last year the Council passed dedicated tax sources for these economic development projects and directed the funds into escrow accounts. The moneys involved are not part of the District's general fund, could not be spent for any other purpose, and this spending will not increase the District's deficit. Under the narrow focus of this legislation and considering the economic benefits for the District of Columbia and the entire National Capital region from these projects, I ask Members to support H.R. 2108.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up the bill (H.R. 2108), to permit the Washington Convention Center Authority to expend revenues for the operation and maintenance of the existing Washington Convention Center and for preconstruction activities relating to a new convention center in the District of Columbia, to permit a designated authority of the District of Columbia to borrow funds for the preconstruction activities relating to a sports arena in the District of Columbia and to permit certain revenues to be pledged as security for the borrowing of such funds, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, September 6, 1995.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until Wednesday, September 6, 1995, the Speaker and the minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material thereon on H.R. 2108.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that for the legislative days of Wednesday, August 2, Thursday, August 3, and Friday, August 4, 1995, all Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in that section of the Record entitled ``Extension of Remarks.''

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] for yielding me time. Colleagues, the 1994 elections were about change, but it is clear from the discussion in this Chamber tonight that the old habits die hard. We came here to change government, and despite the rhetoric we have heard this evening from the other side, the existing language in the appropriation bill does not affect the Red Cross, it does not affect the YMCA, it does not affect the churches and other genuine charitable organizations. They are not affected. They do not spend 5 percent of their time lobbying the Federal Government doing inside activities. They are genuine charitable organizations. Mr. Chairman, for those who are tired of business as usual, of having tax dollars go to special interest groups who come back here and try to funnel back that money to the group giving them money in the first place, this is our time, this is our moment. Let us defeat this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, it is with reluctance, I say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], I have to oppose his amendment. I came to Washington to fight against more power and decisionmaking coming from this Congress, and I just was very proud to vote with my colleagues a few minutes ago to end welfare for lobbyists. But I think this goes a little bit too far. If you do not like compulsory fees and how they are spent, you have other choices. You can work with student organizations to change the way those decisions are made. But I do not think we need to focus here in Washington to try to change it here from this Congress. It seems to me, in my judgment, are we now setting the standard for political correctness here from the House of Representatives, from Washington, DC? I do not think so. I highly respect my colleague from New York, but in my judgment, this goes too far. I remember my days as a student at Amherst College at the height of the antiwar movement. I was chairman of the Conservative Union. I remember, in those days, not getting a voice. I do not think these decisions ought to be measured from Washington. There ought to be other ways to change it. I oppose this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, Mr. Chairman. I applaud the leadership of the chairman of the committee and the assistance of the chairman of the Committee on National Security, the gentleman from Florida, Bill Young, in continuing funding for the DOT extramural AIDS program in the Labor-Health and Human Services- Education appropriations bill. As we know, the Army Research and Development Command was originally tasked by Congress in 1996 as lead DOD command for HIV-AIDS research. This research has focused on the practical aspects of screening, prevention, and early-stage treatment affecting military readiness and national security. The Army Medical Corps has a long history of battling infections diseases that threaten military personnel, and the success of the Army's program has been due largely to the unique character of military life.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution. America should be a world leader, not the world waffler and follower that we have been in this crisis. We waited and allowed the U.N. safe havens to operate, but they have failed. We have stood by watching while tens of thousands of innocent Bosnians Moslems have been raped, bombed, and murdered The arms embargo is a very noble-sounding phrase, but the arms embargo hurts only one side, the Bosnian Moslems. The Serbs have plenty of firepower and the remnants of the Yugoslavian armed forces. The arms embargo simply means that the Bosnian Moslems will be unable to defend themselves, and the Serbs have plenty of firepower. Last week I was visited by two members of the Bosnian Parliament. When I asked what this country could do to halt the ongoing atrocities in Bosnia, they replied they do not want U.S. troops. They do not want this country's intervention. They only want us to help the lifting of the arms embargo so they can defend themselves against these atrocities. That is the least we can do as a world leader. Let us adopt this resolution and end the current failed policies.